On 2 April 2014 16:04, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>
> I originally missed this line in Rahul's email:
> > Other apps can use the compatibility layer called XWayland."
>
> But did read his reply to Lee:
> >> Hm, not really useful when it doesn`t work with existing WMs ...
> > That would be the responsibility of the WM's themselves.
>
> Which might have been better reiterating the point about the
> compatibility layer.
Reiterating doesn't help much when people jump to conclusions rather than
read through the details which are widely available online but in any case,
the compatibility layer is primary designed for running X apps that haven't
migrated over but window managers are rather special and tend to use very
specific functionality from X rather than rely mostly on abstraction layer
via GTK or Qt which themselves can work with Wayland. So they really should
be ported over and that is the responsibility of the WM developers. You
could in theory be running a full desktop environment over the compatibility
layer but it isn't a good idea since performance will likely suffer and it
isn't designed for that.
I would love to spend all my free time reading up about every new
project, but it's not going to happen. Sorry typo, "I would loathe
to..."
Since you and Stephen Gallagher have now said somewhat contradictory
things I'm left no wiser than when we started. I also don't know
whether to take the statement about performance at face value or
whether to imagine it's conjecture, since compatibility layers can be
quite transparent. (And also since more modern WMs incorporate
scripting engines we seem to be at the point where we say performance
limits for WM aren't a worry any more.)
--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk